Re: libquota proposal

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 05:11:21PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
>>>>>>>> (also, edquota and repquota seem fs-independent to me...)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> no, they're not: they can directly the quota1 file specified in the
>>>>>>> fstab if quotactl fails or the filesystem is not mounted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's a bug, or more accurately legacy behavior that doesn't need to
>>>>>> be supported.
>>>>>
>>>>> of course it's not nice. But we're talking about existing code calling
>>>>> the
>>>>> legacy quotactl. If we're going to change it to not check the fstab
>>>>> options any more, we may as well change it to use libquota.
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand - surely edquota and repquota go through your
>>>> proplib interface now?
>>>
>>> We were talking about code like netatalk, which is why I propose
>>> a public library for this.
>>
>> Uh, now I really don't understand.
>
> what don't you understand ?
You said that edquota and repquota aren't fs-independent; I asked why,
given that they should be going through the new quota API, and you
suddenly started talking about legacy code and netatalk.
--
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost